| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Now they can't use the word again, despite its being used by non-Muslims for centuries. By Szeleng Chan for Christian Today (thanks to Twostellas):
Malaysian Christians have expressed deep disappointment after the Malaysian Government appeared to backtrack on an earlier decision to allow non-Muslims to use the word “Allah”.The dispute over the use of “Allah” started when the Malaysian Government threatened to revoke a local Catholic tabloid’s permit to publish. In response, The Herald weekly newspaper of the Catholic Church in Malaysia filed a lawsuit last month against the government, claiming that the ban was unconstitutional and violates freedom of religion.
Not long after The Herald filed its suit, the government back-tracked, however, stating in a fax to The Herald's editor that the newspaper would receive its 2008 permit with no conditions attached.
The government’s position appeared to change again, however, when the de-facto minister for Islamic affairs, Abdullah Zin, told reporters that the Cabinet had agreed that the term should only be used by Muslims.
Zin said the Cabinet was of the view that "Allah" refers to the Muslim God and can only be used by Muslims, who comprise about 60 per cent of Malaysia's population.
Wait til Ibrahim Hooper gets a load of this. I'm sure he'll fire off a sharp letter to Zin, explaining that we all worship the same God.
Posted by Robert at January 14, 2008 9:36 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"Zin said the Cabinet was of the view that "Allah" refers to the Muslim God and can only be used by Muslims, who comprise about 60 per cent of Malaysia's population."
I always knew Allah wasnt God.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 14, 2008 9:52 AM
of course muslims object to having allah being called God:
the entity that is allah (the devil if you ask me) led a rebellion in heaven so as to be equal with the God (Father, Son and Spirit of the Christian faith)...still following true to form
As a Christian, I also agree that God should not be called allah...it's a no brainer. There is not one attribute of the God of the Bible that is in common with attributes of allah.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at January 14, 2008 10:07 AM
Oh snap, well they want to have their cake and eat it on everything else why not this.
Posted by: GrennBeck at January 14, 2008 10:30 AM
These Christians should be glad they aren't allowed to use the monicker of a minor Arabian deity- cunningly re-cycled by a plagiarizing pedophile slaveholding warlord killer thief and liar- for the name of their utterly opposite and ineffably loving God.
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 14, 2008 10:44 AM
Memo to Malay speaking Christians: Adapt the Sanskrit based word 'Bhagwan' (meaning God) and use it. No Hindus will go at you
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 14, 2008 12:29 PM
From what I understand, the word allah is the representation of god of abram.
That means, by muslims terms, anyone that professes judasm, christianism, islam or hanifs could by any means use it. Its a matter of perception.
This was also in the quran.
Now, going against it only proves 2 things:
1. Islamic stupidity
2. Political gain of muslims in power
I feel that they are not stupid or perhaps they pretend accidentally.
I also feel that theres an ongoing effort to indirectly force settlers in east malaysia to be muslims.
Now, by accepting allah officially, their fight is over as most muslims source of motivation was theres no god but allah.
Theres also little moral & spiritual standing for the muslim leaders to lead them (by mohamedean history, the leaders lead against non believers of allah and won, but never won those who believe in allah), so in this sense, political islam will not be strong as expected.
So I could conclude its mainly a political statement than a fact.
Here you go Islamic scholars.
at January 14, 2008 1:35 PM
Infidel Pride, yea, i agree too.
Posted by: tjwork at January 14, 2008 1:40 PM
To name is to know; to know is to control.
By unilaterally stripping Malaysian Christians of the right to name the Moslems' godhead, they've lost control over what little chance for survival they had before this latest Moslem edict restricting the rights of non-Moslems.
Let's wait and see what Glenn Beck has to say...
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 14, 2008 5:58 PM
The whole thing is just a pretext, a handy excuse to prevent the Christians from publishing their newspaper; thus de facto enforcing the dhimma condition, that Christians in 'Muslim' territory may practise their faith only privately and in silence, out of sight and hearing of the Muslims.
If the Christians hadn't been using the word 'allah', another pretext would surely have been found.
A similar ploy was pulled with the standard edition of the Malay translation of the Bible. I quote, from the Christian publication, 'Operation World' (2001) the following, on Malaysia:
"*The restriction of the public use of the Indonesian Bible*. A government directive was issued to forbid the use and sale of the Bible in the related [i.e. related to Malay] Indonesian language. This commonly uses terminology claimed exclusively by Muslims, so Indonesian Christian literature is not allowed to be sold publicly".
Thieving and bullying and lying - the imitatio Mohammedi.
at January 14, 2008 9:32 PM
From the 'Pact of Omar', the original template of 'dhimmitude' (subjugation of non-Muslims) some clauses that appear to be relevant to the current case:
We [Christians] will not:
publicize practices of Shirk [Christianity is 'shirk', because it teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, and worships God as Trinity, which in Muslim eyes = polytheism]
invite anyone to Shirk [no evangelism permitted]...
We will not:
imitate their [Muslims'] clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, SPEECH, nicknames and title names...
We will refrain from:
erecting crosses on the outside of our churches
and demonstrating them [crosses] AND OUR BOOKS in public in Muslim fairways and markets.
Sharia-minded Muslims would want to impose, on Malaysian Christians, all of these conditions and more.
A Christian church publishing a Christian paper (which would doubtless include occasional visible representations of crosses, and would include occasional passages from Christian scripture and accounts of Christian beliefs) is publicising shirk, inviting people to same, and making all this available in 'Muslim' commercial space, i.e. ordinary shops in Malaysia. It is also using some language also used by Muslims.
at January 14, 2008 9:42 PM
I have had Muslims admit to me openly that Allah and the God of the Bible are not the same entity.
Seems to me if they believe that (and they are correct to do so I agree) then it makes a mockery of their entire religious belief.
Posted by: payingattention at January 15, 2008 6:36 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)